The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Viva Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an extension of the mandate of the sole arbitrator. The petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, with the Court holding that courts in Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) have exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings.
The dispute arose from a road construction project awarded by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) to Viva Infraventure in 2015. While the arbitration clause (Clause 34) empowered the CEO of NOIDA to appoint the arbitrator and left the venue to be fixed by the arbitrator, Clause 32 of the contract provided that only courts in Gautam Budh Nagar would have jurisdiction over disputes arising from the arbitration clause.
Although the Sole Arbitrator, Justice G.S. Singhvi (Retd.), had fixed New Delhi as the seat in a procedural order dated 15 October 2022, the Delhi High Court found that this designation was not made with the express consent of both parties, and hence did not override the contractually agreed exclusive jurisdiction clause.
Justice Jasmeet Singh ruled that a unilateral procedural order cannot alter the jurisdiction agreed upon by the parties. Relying on precedents such as Precitech Enclosures v. Rudrapur Precision Industries, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1609, and Mankastu Impex v. Airvisual Ltd (2020) 5 SCC 399., the Court held that the presence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause covering arbitration-related proceedings binds the parties, even if the seat is fixed elsewhere.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and the Court clarified that only the courts at Gautam Budh Nagar are competent to entertain such applications, including under Section 29A.
Appearances in the case
Petitioner: Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vikas Tiwari, Mr. Kumar Deepraj, Ms. Arushi Rathore, Advs.
Respondent: Mr. Suvigya Awasthy, Mr. Vivek Joshi, Mr. Rohan Gulati, Advs.
Read Judgment
